Shocking. To say the least. I have learned more about e/m and vibration from Curt, than all my previous teachers combined.

Except when I put an wire wrapped nail into an A/C socket. 9v good 120v better? I was 11.

a

I think I tried something similar, If you admit it, I suppose I will too.

Once one really observes these plasma currents, It's pretty obvious that the same thing on a larger scale is happening in distant places on a much grander scale.

Yeah, I think that they occur more than we are led to believe. I am aware of the amount of lightning that goes up is far greater than the amount that connects with the ground.

I am wondering about the vibrations and density. I think I am going to buy some tuning forks on ebay and play with these concepts.

a

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3222476/Suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking.html


Or try this explanation: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=xewq47rt&pf=YES

Thanks for the complement. I have a decent amount of respect for you too, so I appreciate your commendatory remark. It's fun finding the puzzle pieces and seeing them fit into place, No?

Shame that the puzzle you're putting together is itself just a piece of a larger puzzle, though EU theory seems to have overlooked that possibility.

"Gravity only" deep thinkers are the ones who continuously invent unheard of Physics to keep their religion from crapping out.

I'm not a gravity only thinker, silly child.

I'm so far beyond what you imagine me to be, that I doubt you would even be able to comprehend the depth of my understanding of reality.

You're drawing on the walls with crayons, scribbling over the mysterious word you call gravity, angry because it confused you. So you turn and draw a big smiley face around whichever crank theory makes you feel smart.


While I, I see the truth which lies behind all things. I can see the nuts and bolts holding everything together, and I even know their nature.


While you throw tantrums, I'm admiring the beautiful simplicity of the universe.

Max™ said: "I'm so far beyond what you imagine me to be, that I doubt you would even be able to comprehend the depth of my understanding of reality."

I am sure you believe everything you believe is true.
Fortunately, for us, reality goes ahead and does what it does without you.

Apparently, I write better with crayons than you do with a computer.

With all your wisdom, can you see the future? Which way do the threads turn on your nuts and bolts? Lefty loosey, righty tighty? You must be very rich, with all your adept knowledge!

While it's true that reality does what it does with or without me, at least I am in touch with reality. You cannot say the same thing truthfully.

What ever you say! Don't burn your fingers fondling reality.

Say, how's your girl? Did she find her sunglasses?

The universe is electrical. The sooner you catch on, the better your theories will be. Your fourth dimension reality will fall, it's too complicated.

Too complicated for who, you?

It's quite simple actually.

It's about time you realized, it's about time.

It's about time.

It's about distance.

Most of the Universe is not moving at relativistic speed. So there is no need for corrections there.

If you were traveling at relativistic speed in our Universe, your vision of it would be highly distorted. You could not navigate. You would be bombarded with gamma rays. You could not see where you have been because everything behind you is only visible in infrared or lower frequency signals. No one could communicate with you for the same reasons. You would be lost in space, especially if your "time" had come close to a stop.

I don't know, maybe that's where you are now.

Relativity doesn't stop working when you aren't moving at velocities close to the speed of light, you know.

Relativity is about what is seen between frames. I recited what would be seen. You have a problem with that?

Relativity is about the RELATIONSHIPS between frames of reference, explaining them, and understanding the reasons for the particular nature of those relationships.

You can try to describe the space between them, and consider states without specific frames, or consider concepts such as the reference frame of light.

Those would be great thoughts to work on, but they are not the point of Relativity. They can be extrapolated upon from the theoretical framework presented though. I myself did so, taking the consideration of light, and if it could be described as having a reference frame.

I should have stated that relativity is about what is seen in one frame from another frame. Einstein assumed no absolute reference, so the view in one frame of the other has to be identical to the view in the other, of the original frame.

Therefore, if "time" really slows down for the "moving frame," and either frame can be considered the "moving frame," we have a contradiction; not a paradox.

I see that the Doppler shift causes distortions in the perceptions of time and distance. You attribute the cause to your wad theory. Ocam's razor, shave with it.

Curt: I should have stated that relativity is about what is seen in one frame from another frame. Einstein
assumed no absolute reference, so the view in one frame of the other has to be identical to the view in the other, of the original frame.

Therefore, if "time" really slows down for the "moving frame," and either frame can be considered the "moving frame," we have a contradiction; not a paradox.


Oops, no, if neither frame can be determined to be at rest/accelerating, then they have to be reciprocal.


NOT ALL FRAMES DO THOUGH.

Max™ said: "Oops, no, if neither frame can be determined to be at rest/accelerating, then they have to be reciprocal."

Curt says: It wasn't a trick question, Max™. I said they have to be reciprocal. The theory says they are not. Supposedly, relative motion causes the moving clocks to measure time slower than the observer's frame, that's the theory. Either frame can be considered to be in either state. In fact, an observer in each frame would see the other clock in the other frame running slower.

That is a contradiction, not a paradox.

According to Albert, there is no "rest" frame.

Your state is confusion, inebriation, or you just like to post nonsense.

So, you must agree with the above summery.

Don't put words in my mouth, they taste stupid coming from you.

You are mistaken about the implications of motion, from each observers frame of reference, they claim a clock in motion moves slower, and they are at rest.

You cannot simply look at your own watch and determine it is experiencing time dilation.

From a third reference point, argued to be at rest compared to either frame, you could perhaps, but this is an example of why Special Relativity is incomplete without General Relativity.


You grasp at straws, blindly, and come up thinking you've unraveled the whole thing, when really you're only displaying your own ignorance. I've said it nicely, but you misread my statements, now I'm being honest. You're ignorant about the theory of Relativity. You should perhaps read a book on the subject before making claims and posing arguments about it, so you don't look like a stupid child.

Max said: "You are mistaken about the implications of motion, from each observers frame of reference, they claim a clock in motion moves slower, and they are at rest."

Curt says: Sorry, Origami Max, the above quote is so ambiguous, I am not going to permute all the ambiguities for you. It cannot be logically deciphered.

You are behind the very last one who can deconstructively criticize my logic. You appear too silly for me to even respond. Why am I wasting my time? That would be the only valid question from you.